The deadlocked jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial has begun deliberating for a seventh day after a holdout juror led to a heated exchange between the judge and Clancy’s defense attorney.
The unusual disclosure about the holdout juror, made in a note to the judge, delivered the clearest glimpse yet of what could be keeping jurors from reaching a verdict on whether the Massachusetts mother is criminally responsible for killing her three children.
The jury has told Judge William Sullivan twice so far that it is unable to agree on a verdict.
Despite a request from Clancy’s defense attorney, Sullivan ruled Friday morning that he would not question the juror further.
Lindsay Clancy’s lawyer clashes with judge
A heated exchange between the judge and Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington ensued, with Reddington accusing the judge of "glossing over" the problem of the holdout juror.
"I would ask that you not just give them, as I described it yesterday, a soft inquiry,” Reddington said. “I would ask that you specifically direct their attention to proof beyond a reasonable doubt and reinstruct them on that forcefully."
Sullivan snapped back: "I think I did that yesterday, didn't I?"
Reddington replied: "You did it yesterday, you did it soft, you didn't do it forcefully, and I'm asking that you do it forcefully."
Sullivan said in response: "What do you want me, what do you want me to do? Get a brass band? I read the instruction as written by the SJC. The fact that I perhaps didn't give it like full inflection, I'm sorry about that, I'm not an actor, I'm just giving the instructions."
Reddington pressed the issue even further, stating: "Well my point, judge, simply is that you're kind of glossing over the issue. The issue is this juror will not, according to that note, apply the law of reasonable doubt, and that's why I've requested, you know what I've requested, so I note my objection."
"I am specifically not glossing over this issue,” Sullivan replied. “I have thought about this issue long and hard, I know the defendant objects, but the characterization that I'm glossing over it, trust me that's not the situation, I've been thinking about this for quite a while."
Jury sends note about holdout juror
Sullivan brought in each juror individually on Thursday and questioned them in private after he received the note about the holdout juror. The judge then reread his instructions on reasonable doubt and sent jurors back to continue deliberating.
Reddington urged Sullivan to dismiss the juror Thursday, arguing the person had refused to follow the judge's instructions. Prosecutors objected and Sullivan refused to remove the juror.
“I don’t feel it is proper for me to side with one side or the other of the deliberations,” the judge said. “I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to say, ‘I agree with one juror or the 11.’ I have asked if they are able to follow my instructions. They swore earlier that they could.”
Lindsay Clancy verdict options
Clancy, a 36-year-old former labor and delivery nurse, doesn’t deny strangling her children in 2023 before trying to take her own life. Her attorney says postpartum psychosis led to her actions, while prosecutors argue she knew what she was doing when she killed Cora, Dawson and Callan Clancy, ages 5, 3 and 8 months.
Prosecutors say Clancy deliberately sent her then-husband on errands to get him out of the house and they questioned the seriousness of her suicide attempt.
Clancy’s livestreamed trial has generated massive interest, with reporters and spectators packing the courtroom. The case has also sparked deep public divisions over her culpability and the issues around maternal mental health after childbirth.
If the jury ultimately can’t agree on a verdict, the judge could declare a mistrial.
Prosecutors would then have to decide whether to put Clancy on trial again, drop the charges or try to negotiate a plea deal with her lawyer.
If the jury decides Clancy was criminally responsible for her actions, it could convict her of either murder or manslaughter.
If she is acquitted, a judge could still order her confined to a mental health facility if an evaluation determines that she poses a danger to the public.
